this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
605 points (94.7% liked)
Greentext
4310 readers
706 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
BUT when you realize it’s an allegory for “keeping strong and continuing to work through adversity instead of giving up” and the mystical beings were made up to help the story … much like the snake that licks the file in aesops tales … it makes sense.
Most Christians do not consider Bible stories to be allegorical and suggesting as much can be called heresy.
Many, many things could be different and better if more people realized more of those stories are allegory.
Almost exactly 50% of Christians in the world are Catholics, who acknowledge that the Bible is allegorical and not literal truth.
If you are referring to fundamentalists (typically evangelicals), yes most of them do believe in the literal truth. Evangelicals in the US are about 24% of the population, and most likely Less in the rest of the world.
Me when I make things up
Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 3 Paragraph 107 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches
And 116 further reinforces there is a literal interpretation of scripture that exists. If someone thinks the Bible is simply allegorical then they aren't a Catholic at all, nevermind Christian
I don't think your quote at all addresses the concept of whether Catholics doctrine declares the Bible to be literally true. Inerrant, yes.
I think there is confusion because the church believes that some passages should be taken literally and other symbolically, and the church will tell you which is which.
So how's that different from protestantism, except from a church existing to tell you which is which?
There are so many flavors of protestantism, it's hard to give a blanket answer.
For example, high Anglican practice and theology are almost indistinguishable from Catholic, except that the head of their Church is an archbishop (and above him theoretically the King of England) rather than a pope, and their priests can get married. That makes some historical sense, because the church was created simply because Henry the 8th wanted to divorce and the Pope wouldn't allow it.
Most mainline Protestant churches believe that it is the individual's right and responsibility to read and interpret scripture for themselves.
For the sake of semantics, the Church of England was created in 597, what Henry VIII did was excommunicate the Bishop of Rome / Pope over a divorce, thus joining the Reformation movement, albeit not for good reason.
I think it depends on the Anglican denomination. The Church of Ireland still likes to keep itself distinct from Roman Catholicism in many ways, but this is getting ahead of the conversation.
Give an answer to how interpreting the Bible as part literal and part figurative is different from how a Baptist would.